This story from a Portland TV station basically finds that the Ducks kept themselves from a crappy graduation rate and certain sanctions by dragging their heels on an internal investigation of the three players who were accused of raping another student last spring. The thought at the time was that they were running out the clock until the NCAA tournament was finished.

Am I missing something here? The story posits that the players were kept in school so the APR score could stay high enough to keep the team out of NCAA trouble. But does the story actually tell us what the score would have been if the players had been tossed immediately?

Is it just me, or did about a quarter of that story talk about the advantages and disadvantages to how the school reacted and when they did it? It explained the complex and often confusing nuts and bolts of APR rather well, I thought.

"“It would be helpful for their APR for them to remain in school and finish their coursework and then be dismissed or suspended at the end of the term,” Infante said.

And that’s exactly what happened.

The alleged sexual assault took place on March 8.

Not quite two months later, on May 5, head coach Dana Altman announced the three players were no longer with the team.

And six weeks after that, they were suspended from the school on June 23 – after classes were over, and after they’d earned all their APR points."